12 Cited authorities

Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
547 U.S. 388 (2006) Cited 3,799 times 130 Legal Analyses
Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement
I4I Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp.
598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 640 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion
Robert Bosch Llc v. Pylon Mfg. Corp..
659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 202 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding district court erred in not finding irreparable harm when the parties were direct competitors, patentee showed lost market share and access to potential customers, and defendant lacked financial stability
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm
543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 202 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner
Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
355 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 178 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the claimed function of a means-plus-function limitation at issue was contained in language set forth after the word "means"
Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp.
702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 138 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[d]irect competition in the same market is certainly one factor suggesting strongly the potential for irreparable harm"
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) Cited 131 times
Finding in a post- eBay decision that, “[i]n view of that right [to exclude], infringement may cause a patentee irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty”
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Guardian Industries Corp.
75 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 159 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no indefiniteness despite failure to specify which method should be used to measure ultraviolet transmittance because all conventional methods produced “essentially identical results”
Edwards Lifesciences Ag v. Corevalve, Inc.
699 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 47 times
Finding that the fact the invention had only been tested on pigs at the time of filing provided substantial evidence supporting verdict rejecting enablement defense
Coloplast A/S v. Generic Med. Devices, Inc.
CASE NO. C10-227 BHS (W.D. Wash. Aug. 9, 2012) Cited 1 times
Finding the balance of hardships favors entry of an injunction
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,449 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 283 - Injunction
35 U.S.C. § 283 Cited 801 times 19 Legal Analyses
Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement

Sealant Systems International, Inc v. TEK Global, S.R.L.

12 Cited authorities

Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

Holding that a party's quarrel with the facts the damages expert used go to the weight, not admissibility, of the expert's opinion

Holding district court erred in not finding irreparable harm when the parties were direct competitors, patentee showed lost market share and access to potential customers, and defendant lacked financial stability

Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner

Holding that the claimed function of a means-plus-function limitation at issue was contained in language set forth after the word "means"

Holding that "[d]irect competition in the same market is certainly one factor suggesting strongly the potential for irreparable harm"

Finding in a post- eBay decision that, “[i]n view of that right [to exclude], infringement may cause a patentee irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty”

Finding no indefiniteness despite failure to specify which method should be used to measure ultraviolet transmittance because all conventional methods produced “essentially identical results”

Finding that the fact the invention had only been tested on pigs at the time of filing provided substantial evidence supporting verdict rejecting enablement defense

Finding the balance of hardships favors entry of an injunction

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement